Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV09200, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09200    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 7, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants 4437-39 Vista Del Monte Avenue L.P. and Mellanie Cook

Responding Party: Plaintiff Kris Cook

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES ONLY.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.)

            Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civil Code § 3294(a).)  Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  (See, e.g., Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 620.)  However, “the stricken language must be read not in isolation, but in the context of the facts alleged in the rest of petitioner's complaint.”  (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6.)

            Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and to strike allegations that Defendants assert are irrelevant and false.

This action arises from a family-owned limited partnership. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Melanie Cook, Plaintiff’s sister, breached her fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by withholding documents and communications, such as financial statements; failing to account for all income; taking unreasonably high management fees; and failing to disburse Plaintiff’s full share of the profits. Plaintiff also alleges Melanie wrongfully persuaded their father to sign a will which cut out Plaintiff.

Defendants assert Plaintiff has failed to allege oppression, fraud, or malice with the requisite specificity. The Court agrees. Conclusory allegations such as Melanie “fraudulently and coercively” persuaded their father to sign a will are insufficient to support punitive damages.

Defendants’ motion to strike as to punitive damages is GRANTED.

The Court declines to strike the remaining allegations. None of the paragraphs cited by Defendants is so clearly irrelevant or contradictory to warrant striking. That Defendants believe certain allegations are irrelevant or contradictory is not grounds to strike.